Results 1 - 20 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5512 | ||
I've jumped in in the middle of this conversation, but if I am correct in my understanding of Cephas question, your answer, charis, is not satisfactory. If God is good and created only good, and evil comes from Lucifer, where then where did Lucifer come from? We know God made him. In all honesty, the serious Christian does not have an answer to the question, "Where does evil come from?" Every single answer has serious logical, philosophical, and theological problems. The only answer we can give is that evil somehow serves to further God's glory. For the Christian, this is an acceptable answer. Credo ut intelligam. I believe that I may understand. |
||||||
2 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5607 | ||
No, you should not. Your current position is understandable, considering the significant amount of animosity between the Anabaptists and just about everyone else. Even though Protestants and Romans fought wars with each other, both of them allied against the Anabaptists, who were viewed as apostate. You have chosen a singularly difficult tradition. I believe, as does the historical tradition of everyone but the Anabaptists, that rebaptism is not only unnecessary, but sinful. It declares that God did not fulfill His promises when you were baptised the first time. Baptism is the sign and seal of entering into the covenant community. It should not be partaken of more than once. More than that, my soteriology does not allow for baptism to be received more than once. Since I believe that free will has nothing at all to do with salvation, strict believers baptism makes no sense, and rebaptism becomes an act of unbelief in the promises of God. |
||||||
3 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5663 | ||
I fail to see how this is true. The Anabaptists were the first ones to rebaptise believers (hence their name, which means "to baptise again"). Other traditions took up the practice after contact with Anabaptists. But it is simply a historical fact that the church had always baptised its infants until the Anabaptists came along in the sixteenth century and the Baptists in the eighteenth. And most Baptist churches do not require rebaptism, they simply will not baptise infants themselves. As to soteriology, I stand by my statement. All it means is that my views on justification will not allow _me_ to support rebaptism. Since I obviously believe my soteriology to be generally correct, I believe that rebaptism is wrong. |
||||||
4 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5664 | ||
Cephas: Point your newsreader to alt.religion.christian-teen. There's very interesting conversation there from time to time, and regardless of what the name indicates, most of the people there aren't either Christian or in their teens. Any question is fair game. This forum seems to be intended for Christians to ask other Christians about Scripture. |
||||||
5 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5665 | ||
I'll leave the disproving to others, but I think that I can explain a bit. First, it depends on whether he is reacting to music as a whole, or just the music in youth group. If it is the latter, I would not only understand but wholeheartedly agree. I am coming to believe that "contemporary worship" does not count as worship. Look at the majesterial forms of worship set up in the Old Testament, and see how Hebrews says that we have come to something even more impressive. Then think about the kinds of music commonly played in youth groups. Doesn't exactly fit. Music is to contribute to a proper attitude, an attitude of awe, reverence, fear, and joy. Worship is entering into the very throne room of the risen Christ, and should reflect the gravity of the situation. Most music used in worship simply does not do this. If the gentlemen in question is thinking along these lines, his position is fairly understandable. However, if he holds that music of any kind is not permissible in worship, I am at somewhat of a loss to provide an explanation. It seems that music has always been used by the people of God in worship from the very earliest. My guess is that he is overreacting to the sentimental tripe that passes for "worship" nowadays. |
||||||
6 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5688 | ||
Oh my. First of all, I detect a distinct, anti-tradition vibe here. Your first paragraph is simply sarcasm. Next, you have misconstrued me again. I never meant to say that only Anabaptists and Baptists baptise. How you could have gotten that from my post is beyond me. I assumed that believers' baptism would be understood as contra infant baptism. Of course I believe in baptism. Every Christian church baptizes believers, but only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants. The Pentecostal/charismatic denominations are offshoots of the Holiness movement, an offshoot from Methodism. Methodism was founded by John Wesley, who was converted by a Moravian Anabaptist. As to historical church tradition, simply look around. We all came from Rome at one point, and they have always baptised infants, and still do. The Reformed denominations baptise infants, as do the Lutherans. Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history. |
||||||
7 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5690 | ||
Yes, I know the largest denomination in the US is Baptist. Their origins are in Holland, with the English Separatists. The movement's founder originally had close ties with the Mennonites, an Anabaptist group. There are several Churches of Christ (by name of course), so I can't comment on those. But I think that both of them are Pentecostal, which would allow one to trace their history to Anabaptism through Wesley. When I said difficult, I meant historically. Until quite recently they have been in a minority position. In Europe they were persecuted by just about everybody. That's all I was getting at. |
||||||
8 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5691 | ||
Well, if he is denying the use of all music in worship, then I really don't know where he's getting that. Paul indicates the use of songs in worship. I'm afraid I can't help here. | ||||||
9 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5730 | ||
I can take your first paragraph as either deliberately insulting or significant misunderstanding, and I'm not sure which would be more appropriate. I'll let you determine that. In any case, it is a red herring and quite possibly ad hominum abusive. I'll let it go at that. Your second paragraph is a little better. I am glad that you recognize, or at least make mention of, Anabaptism being heresy. At its inception, it was recognized as such by all of the branches of the church that were in existence at the time, Protestant and Catholic. Still, you are setting up a straw-man by restating my position in a manner that I do not condone and then proceeding to mock this restatement. This is not a sufficient answer. I recognize that a paragraph devoted to denominational history hardly does justice to the complexities involved, nor do I deny that those of ages past acted in good conscience. But there is no other way of tracing the development of the church without resorting to such "oversimplifications" as you call them. Everything I said was true, and I am not aware that I inadvertently suppressed relevant evidence. If I have, please present it for consideration instead of simply dismissing my arguments with a wave of your hand. If you find my words offensive, be that as it may. I am sorry of my manner offends you, but I cannot detect anything offensive in it. I am not primarily interested in "making friends and influencing people." I am primarily interested in proclaiming the truths of Scripture. It is not my responsibility to ensure that you or anyone else likes or agrees with me. It is my responsibility to tell it like it is, which I trust that I have done. Furthermore, when I said "we call came from Rome at one point" I was not referring to us personally, but our traditions. And you cannot possibly deny that you belong to a tradition. You were brought into the faith by someone, and you adhere to a church. When I say "tradition" I do not mean the Romish conception of tradition that is equal with the Word. I simply mean the history of the people of God. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, and I see that you are not, then your church can be traced to Rome eventually, even if it be independant. Your profile indicates that you are probably a missionary of some kind. Who brought you into the faith? Who brought them into the faith? Trace it back through history far enough and you will come to Rome. Unless, that is, you hold to the exceptionally bizarre "Baptist Bride" idea. I am not simply "pontificating my denominational bent." When counting traditions, I am in the majority. On the infant baptistic side, we have the East, Rome, the Reformed tradition, the Anglican tradition, the Lutheran tradition, and some Methodist groups. On the believers' baptism side there are the Baptists and Anabaptists, which, I might add, are almost exclusively in the US. So I will call that into evidence. The requirements you set before me are utterly impossible. It seems that nothing I can say will have any affect on you. Since you are currently defining "incontrovertable" and "truth," you can redefine them as you see fit. Still, I will make a stab at it. Note in Acts 10, Peter oversees the baptism of Cornelius' whole household. In Acts 16, Paul baptizes Lydia's household. Later in Acts 16, Paul baptizes the household of the Corinthian jailer. In 1Cor. 15 Paul recounts the households he baptized in Corinth. It is safe to assume that infants were present at in all of these households. Since these are all of the times that baptism occurs where families are present, it would seem that infant baptism is not without significant support in the NT. Then there is circumcision. Yes, I know we no longer circumcise. But the Jews did. And they circimcised on the eighth day of life as a sign and seal of the covenant. Since baptism is the same thing, the sign and seal of the covenant, it makes sense that we should do as they did. The sign of the covenant is no longer a physical sign upon the body, but it is done shortly after birth all the same. |
||||||
10 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5734 | ||
John's baptism has never been considered Christian baptism. The believers here were not repbaptized in that sense. They were first baptized into John, then Christ. We were talking about something significantly different, namely, being baptized into Christ as an infant and then again as an adult. My views on justification are simply Scriptural. Romans is a just about the best book for talking about justification, but Galatians is good as well. Namely, justification is an act of God based solely upon the council of his own will and based in no part upon anything that we have done or will do. Rom. 3:24; 5:15-16; 8:30; Rom. 3:22-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; II Cor. 5:19, 21; Titus 3:5, 7; Eph. 1:7; Jer. 23:6; I Cor. 1:30-31; John 1:12; 6:44-45, 65; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Eph. 2:7-8 For passages specifically relating to baptism, see: Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15; Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14 |
||||||
11 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5772 | ||
Okay, let's step back a minute. First, I have not "denounced" anyone. To say that because a denomination has heretical roots that all of its members are heretics commits both the genetic and division fallacies. I want to do neither of those. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that the first instance of a strict believers' baptism as opposed to covenantal baptism makes its appearance in the Anabaptists. If you can provide evidence of strict believers' baptism earlier than that, please do so, but I believe you will find it difficult. Why do I consider this telling? Because if the church has never acted in a certain way, it is extremely dubious to suggest that they had it wrong the whole time and now we have it right. If you can provide evidence of opposition to infant baptism from a non-heretical group before the sixteenth century, you are welcome to do so. Your analysis of my argument about tradition totally ignores most of my points. Were you or were you not brought into the Christian faith by someone else? I would wager anything that the answer is that you were. If so, who brought them? And who brought them? And who brought them? You see? And I am not "aligning" myself with either Rome or the East. I would, in fact, attempt to strongly distance myself from both of them. But I, contrary to what you have stated, will freely admit that both of those ancient denominations have good things about them, including but not limited to, their views on infant baptism and reverence in worship. About the scope of the Baptist tradition. Judging from the size of the SBC (somewhere about 10,000,000), and including all the rest of the hundreds of Baptist denominations in the US, there are probably 20,000,000 Baptists here. Where else are there Baptists? Well, there are some in England, but they have always been a tiny minority. Everywhere else in the world they are the result of mission works and exist in small numbers. My evidence? Look on the net. Search Google for "baptist denominations" and tell me what you find. There are several respectible Baptist history sites there (stay away from the Landmarkist stuff though). All of them place the origin of the Baptistic denominations in England and America, and it has spread only through missionary work ever since. This doesn't take world travelling or years of study. A cursory examination of immediately available evidence should suffice. But I did not simply make this up on the spot: I have been studying denominational history for several years now. On to Scripture. The idea that household does not include children seems to run directly contrary to the use of the word everywhere else in Scripture. Just do a word search using "household" and see what you get. It _always_ means the entire house. Assumming that household does not include children is out of line with the rest of Scripture. You are welcome to provide places in Scripture where "household" does not refer to the whole thing. And references about baptism do not count since that would be circular reasoning. While I do believe that baptism has replaced circumcision, exactly how long after the birth baptism occurs is of no importance to me, provided it is done in a timely manner and as soon as convenient. The eighth day regulation is not important. Furthermore, Christ's institution of Christian baptism says nothing about baptizing believers only, and also says nothing about baptizing adult believers only. Making any argument on either of those grounds is fallacious at best. Just as I cannot clearly say that Christ instituted infant baptism, you cannot clearly say that he instituted believers' baptism. Yet, all of the promises of God to his people are "for you and your children" or something along those lines. God works through families, and always has. Not baptizing infants is a denial of God's chosen method of action in the world. I see Paul's baptism of households as evidence that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles, Paul being an apostle and all. Your mention of "circumcision of the heart" does not help you, for the thrust is that physical circumcision is simply a sign of what ought to happen in the heart. Baptism is exactly the same, a sign of what should happen on the inside. Just because there is a spiritual reality does not mean that physical reality may be abandoned. Oh, and please do not put in quotes anything that is not either from Scripture or actually taken verbatim from my post. To do otherwise only serves to put words in my mouth, a profoundly uncharitible, unfair, and illogical practice. |
||||||
12 | Aren't a lot more killed in chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5780 | ||
Here's a suggestion: abandon dispensational premillenialism. You will never resolve your question as to who will be in the millennium unless you do. Being amillennial/preterist myself, I believe that the millennium is now, and that we, the saints, reign with Christ. Cf. Ephesians 2. Being "seated" is the symbol of authority, just as a king sits on a throne. We already reign with Christ, but await the final fulfillment that will come when Christ returns (cf. Rev. 2). | ||||||
13 | What about chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5804 | ||
I believe that Revelation has a threefold purpose. The first is to provide the church with a glimpse of heaven, which in turn makes a gigantic part of Scripture make a lot more sense. All of the tabernacle furniture? Mirrored in Revelation at some point. The great covenant promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7? Cf. Revelation 21:3. The entire book is filled with parallels of this kind. The second purpose, and the most directly applicable to the original audience, is to prophacy about the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. The similarities are striking. And in Josephus, who records the war in 67-73AD, says that the Christians had fled Jerusalem for they had a word of revelation. This is the preterist part of my eschatology. I believe that most of Revelation except for the second half of 20-22 has already happened in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. The army from the north (Rome), came through the land and killed upwards of a million Jews. Severe famine, widespread death, disease, and destruction. The third purpose of Revelation is to provide the church with snapshots of what life will be like between the Advents. There are many possible "fulfillments" of these passages, for in this sense are not intended to speak about a single event (except for, of course, the great white throne, New Jerusalem, and imagery of that type). As such, saying that Revelation 16 "has already taken place" doesn't make much sense when using Revelation in this third way. It has happened many times before, and will happen many times again. The passage is intended to be a comfort to the church, stranger in a strange land, that God will come to judge her enemies and vindicate the righteous. |
||||||
14 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5805 | ||
Well, on one hand, heretical roots should be of great concern. We should strive to be as Biblical as humanly possible by the grace of God. But don't let it bother you too much. Nowadays, almost everyone has been influenced by many numbers of people, some of whom are bound to be heretics. This is only a problem if one refuses to reconsider one's beliefs in light of Scripture. Besides, it is the grace of God that saves, not correct theology. If I were to "denounce" everyone with partly heretical theology, I'd have to ditch almost the entire American church, since I believe that Arminianism is heresy (no, I really don't want to go here now. just an example). I guess this is one point where I am going to have to offend. Charis, there is no way on earth that you could have come to your conclusions "on your own" for one simple reason: your conclusions are not new. You do not exist in a conceptual vaccuum, separated from all influence on the outside. You exist in a conceptual climate whose origins can be traced. You have been influenced by someone. The mere fact that you study anything but the Bible requires that you be influenced by at least one tradition. This is not a problem! It is a very good thing, provided one chooses one's tradition wisely. And don't be worried about tracing your origins to Rome. Mine are there too. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, everyone does. The Reformers, whose tradition I follow, came out of Rome, and while they vilified the Roman Church, had no problem with admitting that they were once part of it. It's simply a historical fact, nothing more. Again, judging a thing because of its historical origins is illogical (genetic fallacy). Things change. But, if a problem has been dealt with in history and then resurfaces (or never goes away), such as belivers' only baptism, it is appropriate to bring out the answers that were given centuries ago. The verses you quote do not help you much. The passage in John is speaking only of Christ's disciples. Only adult men could be disciples. If you push your interpretation on this, only adult men may be baptized. You would obviously include women, which would require you to introduce a category of baptism not included in this verse. Why not children too? The passage from Acts quite likely included children. The speech was given during one of the Jewish holy feasts, when Jewish families from all across the Mediterranian region came to celebrate. The crowd was almost certainly men, women, and children. Once again, the text says nothing about children being excluded. Finally, what if they do speak of the baptism of adults? I certainly approve of that, provided they were not baptized before. So does everyone who believes in infant baptism. Since the crowd was entirely unbaptized, requiring them to be baptized only makes sense. Show me one instance where "household" does not include every member of the house. And the fact (which I may yet dispute) that "household" may include animals does not help you either. Scripture never puts animals and humans in the same category as far as I can tell. I have no doubt that you are a Christian, and part of the family of God. No one has to have all of their theology and practice perfect to belong to Him. I certainly do not. But insofar as I see disparity between myself and others, I will argue for my position until I either convince, am convinced, or the argument becomes unfruitful. |
||||||
15 | More help with the millennium | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5811 | ||
Yes, I do believe that Satan is restrained. His capacity for deceiving the nations was removed at Pentecost. But "the nations" is simply a term for "the Gentiles." No longer is the Word only for the Israelites and those who choose to identify themselves with the Israelite nation. Also, just because Satan's activity is restricted does not mean that he no longer has any activity in the world. Also, I do not believe that the sin in the world comes from Satan. It comes from us; we don't need his help. We are quite capable on our own. Satan was the accuser of the brethren. But "who shall bring an accusation against God's elect." Satan no longer has anything to bring against God's own, for justice has been served in the atoning work of Christ. He can no longer accuse the brethren. About Rev. 16:19. During the siege of Jerusalem, a three-faction civil war broke out between the Jews. Stones weighing up to 90 pounds were hurled over the walls by Roman catapults. Check out http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-4eschaton.php and http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-5eschaton.php for more information on this subject. In fact, the entire Eschaton section on that site is definitely worth reading. Also, Kenneth Gentry's book _Before Jerusalem Fell_ is an excellent exposition of preterism, even though he himself goes the postmillennial route instead of my own amillennial direction. |
||||||
16 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5830 | ||
I would say not. Every part of Scripture meant something to the original audience. If Rev. 16 is referring to the tripartite division of Jerusalem between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, what good would that have done for the first century church? Islam would not come into existence for another seven centuries, and would not take over Jerusalem for a few centuries after that. Also, the land of Palestine ceased to be specifically Jewish in the second century AD. There had not been Jewish/Islamic strife there until this century. If Rev. 16 does refer to Jewish/Islamic/Christian division, it would be of utterly no use to Christians that lived before this century. Scripture does not work this way. More than that though, the church really oughtn't to have any interest in Jerusalem more than any other place on earth. The sacrificial system is _over_ and the temple is no longer necessary. Judaism has served its purpose. Read Hebrews. Now that the new has come the old is dispensed with. |
||||||
17 | big sins / litle sins | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5833 | ||
The answer is both no and yes. On one hand, Scipture clearly indicates that the slightest transgression of the law imputes enough guilt for damnation. Practically though, this shouldn't make much difference, since all of us sin so much that making distinctions on this basis is a bit futile. On the other hand, it does seem that God views some sins as more serious than others. Examine the civil code in the Old Testament. Some sins require death, others do not. And the level of punishment short of death varies, apparently with the severity of the harm caused. I guess the way to harmonize these answers is that from God's perspective, one sin is just as serious as another. But from a human, especially a human judical perspective, some sins are more serious than others. |
||||||
18 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5885 | ||
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, item iii: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39, 4:12; John 3:3, 5, 8, 16:7-8, ; I John 5:12 Of course, that is the Reformed position, and it doesn't work unless you have Reformed soteriology. Also, faithful members of the covenant have the right, based upon the promises of God, to expect that God will work in their children. Thus, Christians who lose a child may be comforted thus, but unbelievers may not. |
||||||
19 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5927 | ||
1) It is true that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. This is unquestioned by everyone who may call themselves a Christian. But look at what the verse actually says. It only speaks about those who call on the name of the Lord. It says nothing at all about those who do not. You have to look elsewhere for that. You want get around Scriptural teaching on justification, go ahead, but don't expect help from this direction. 2) What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on who I will have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display mt power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objecdts of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea, "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people, and I will call her 'my loved one' who was not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people," that they will be called sons of the living God.'" The above is Romans 9:14-26. I did not quote it or state the reference first, because I want you, all of you, to read it. Just read it as an argument. It is abundantly clear in its thrust. Paul leaves no room for difference of opinion or subtlety of meaning. There is no way you can get out of it. This is what Scripture says, clearly, directly, and in a book devoted to justification. The context is justification, the purpose is education about justification, and the conclusion is that _God justifies whoever he wants irrespective of human considerations_. Deal with it. 3) I have no idea where you get the concept of "God's grandchildren." Certainly nothing from what I said. 4) If all you have to contribute is derogatory comments, then keep them for yourself. You only succeed in making yourself look foolish. |
||||||
20 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5930 | ||
That isn't exactly it. God regenerates elect infants, whoever they may be. Christian parents have a right to expect the salvation of their children while unbelieving parents do not. This does not mean that God saves no children of unbelieving parents, only that they have no right to expect it. You are correct in saying that the WCF is not canon. No one believes that. I myself take issue with it on several points (six day creation, the immortality of the soul, Scripture as the source of all knowledge), and recognize that it is not a perfect document. I simply believe that it is one of the best, completest crystallizations of correct, Biblical doctrine. It's nothing more than that. If you'd prefer the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvitic Confession, the French Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelburg Catechism, or some other Reformed confession, I can gladly go there for support. I can even do better than that. Read the Canons of Council of Orange from 529 AD, written against the damnable heretic Pelagius. Beautiful, except for the last paragraph. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |